Comments on: “If no one wants to pay for it, why build it?”

By: Special Guest Post: Tunnel Digest | hugeasscity

Special Guest Post: Tunnel Digest | hugeasscity — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:21:40 +0000

[...] the January 2009 deal In January, Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels agreed to jointly fund and build a $4.2 billion package: a bored tunnel, new transit service, a waterfront [...]

By: The Deep-Bore Tunnel Is A Done Deal (Just Like The Monorail Was) | hugeasscity

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:04:46 +0000

[...] the record, here’s why whiners like me and McGinn won’t shut up, and aren’t ready to concede that the tunnel is a done [...]

By: Joshua Daniel Franklin

Joshua Daniel Franklin — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:32:37 +0000

@24: As far as state money goes, the WSDOT SR 99 project page interprets the numbers as $1.85b of gas tax out of the $2.4b total. (Actual appropriations were via the omnibus transportation bill, SB 5352 2009.) However, the gas tax money could go to other highways, including Seattle arterials like Lake City Way (SR 522) that desperately need HOV lanes. Right now we're using parking tax money on those via SDOT Bridging the Gap--money that could directly go to sidewalks and bike lanes.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:55:01 +0000

@13
You say that opposing the tunnel is not bold leadership, but that instead bold leadership would be figuring out a way to pay for transit and pedestrian improvements.

You’ve missed the point. The $2 billion saved by not building the tunnel IS where you get the money for transit and pedestrian improvements. The ability to say ‘yes’ to the things we need requires the ability to say ‘no’ to other things that compete for scarce resources.

You cannot say that these are unrelated, because the surface-transit option included hundreds of millions of dollars in pedestrian and transit improvements AND MORESO, it did not commit the city to $900 million for the project. That $900 billion can be spent on ANYTHING else, including transit if the city were to so choose.

How excited do you think the citizens of Seattle are going to be to tax themselves to build more light rail after they watch their tax bills go up by $900 million to build a highway?

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:47:47 +0000

@22. I’d appreciate that breakdown of gas taxes/general funds if you have it.

By: andrew

andrew — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:12:07 +0000

@19
That overrun provision will end up being unenforceable, but it’ll generate an exciting lawsuit!

By: Joshua Daniel Franklin

Joshua Daniel Franklin — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:35:56 +0000

No one depends on a highway “for their livelihoods” (except maybe some politicians and construction crews). Livelihoods depend on being able to get places and do business. For the last 50 years LA has tried to address this problem by building more and bigger roads so that in theory it’s fast and easy to get across town. In reality traffic compounds and is easily disrupted by accidents, construction, and just normal driving habits. No one in Paris or New York think it’s reasonable to get across town in a few minutes, and we need to stop thinking Seattle has 1970s traffic levels.

It’s ridiculous to think the state’s $2.4b would all go to roads. Only a percentage is road-dedicated gas taxes (can’t seem to find exact numbers right now). There are a lot of worthy services being cut for lack of general fund revenue.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:43:31 +0000

Despite 28% of trips disappearing, the surface option would have put tremendous strain on the downtown grid, with attendant problems for downtown quality of life. SDOT was planning on adding capacity to 2nd and 4th avenues, as well as Stewart-Olive and one or two other couplets. Logically, the trips would only disappear is the trip was so painful (eg gridlocked) that people decided not to take them. I can live with using gridlock as a means to limit freeway capacity and force people into other options, but when the gridlock is on the downtown streets that hurts the quality of life in the City core.

The reality is that $$ would never be used for libraries, social services, or anything else but roads, and if we suck up $3 billion in funding that would otherwise have gone to sprawling “rural” roads or highway expansions elsewhere, all the better.

If I were McGinn, I’d direct my energy other places

By: Nate Cormier

Nate Cormier — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:02:54 +0000

stop the insanity! 70% of seattle voted NO TUNNEL. we have evolved beyond nickels’ highway-only solution. a broad coalition, including the people’s waterfront coalition, identified the streets and transit approach as a win-win for seattle. if the state wants to shove another carbon sucking highway under or over us, and nickels wants to be the cheeerleader, at least let the state pay for any overruns. i’d rather spend the billions on schools, streets, community policing, green infrastructure, and job creation. the nickels tunnel to nowhere has seattle citizens on the hook for billions of overruns and doesn’t help us build the city we need. mcginn has lots of other good ideas, but i think he is right to harp on nickels’ worst idea.

cheers, nate

By: dan bertolet

dan bertolet — Wed, 13 May 2009 09:04:11 +0000

Andrew, sounds like you and Ben need to duke it out over at STB.

Some of us recognize that Nickels deserves huge credit for ST2, but also dislike the tunnel.

As for the McGinn quote, the point is that if the tunnel is the best solution for the State of Washington, then why won’t the State take full financial responsibility for making it happen? The absurd cost overrun stipulation implies that the tunnel is actually an unjustified gift to Seattle, and so if it ends up costing too much then primadonna Seattle should have to pay for it. Is the State fully behind this solution or not? And is the City of Seattle fully behind this solution even if it ends up costing the City significantly more than the $900 million already committed?